PLAN COMMISSION

September 7, 2006

                                                                                                           

Members present:  Breault, Koch, Yoerg, Mailloux, Gilbert, Caruso and Bieraugel

 

Others present:  Mary and Gus Marchant, Dan Routson, Jay Andrews, David Magnuson, Dennis Lovold, Gerald O’Flaherty, Dave Holt, David Robson, Brian Zeller, Alan Catchpool, Dennis Darnold and others

 

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Breault at 7:00 p.m.

 

Moved by Mailloux, seconded by Yoerg to approve the meeting minutes of 8/24/06 and the special meeting of 9/1/06.  Motion carried.

 

Proposed purchase of part of lot 38 Vine Hills First Addition and request to release / relocate utility easements in consideration of the proposed construction of a residential addition to residence at 518 Grandview Drive – Marchant, 518 Grandview Drive (lot 3, block 1, Stonepine First Addition).  Darnold explained that the purchase of part of the adjacent lot in Vine Hills First Addition in itself is not a concern.  However, the Marchants may construct an addition onto their residence at 518 Grandview Drive.  That lot is within the Stonepine planned residential development and has a different zoning district classification than the area they will be purchasing from their neighbors in the Vine Hills subdivision and have different setback standards.  The issue before the plan commission is whether to recommend approval of the release and relocation of the utility easements.  Darnold recommended the release of the easement with the condition that the 10 foot wide utility easement will be relocated with 5 feet on each side of the new lot line or 10 feet along the east side of the new lot line.  Darnold further explained that the construction of the addition would require an amendment to the conditional use permit for the planned residential development or the approval of a variance by the board of appeals.  Darnold suggested that the variance procedure be followed.

 

Mary Marchant asked why the variance procedure would be required.  Darnold explained that the setback from the street right-of-way is different, 30 feet versus the side yard setback in the Stonepine development, 5 feet.  The issue is the consistency of the setbacks with the remainder of the Vine Hills development.

 

Moved by Yoerg, seconded by Bieraugel to approve the release and relocation of the utility easement between lot 3, block 1, Stonepine First Addition (518 Grandview Drive) and lot 38, Vine Hills First Addition (Topaz Lane) and relocation of the easement along the new established property line with either the easement being 5 feet on each side of the line or 10 feet on lot 38 of Vine Hills First Addition and with the provision that the utility companies sign off on the release of the easement.  Motion carried.

 

 

 

Page 2, Plan Commission

September 7, 2006                                                                              

 

 

Conditional use permit for outdoor vehicle sales, 805 Dominion Drive (former Perkins site) – AutoProz / Dan Routson.  Darnold commented that he had an opportunity to review the issues raised previously by Motels of Hudson particularly the 25 foot green space buffer required adjacent to public street right of way and the extension of the building.  Darnold noted that he is of the opinion that the building can be extended so long as the extension is not closer to the west property line than the existing building.  Darnold noted that the city attorney advised that if the proposed development did not meet the green space requirement that the project should not be approved.  Darnold stated that he advised the applicant to revise the green space area along the north and south property lines.

 

David Magnuson, counsel for AutoProz stated that he wanted to clarify for the plan commission where the applicant is coming from regarding the issues that have risen.

Magnuson noted that the applicant is the owner of the property and that the TireProz business is an auto service establishment and not a full auto repair shop.  He explained that if the green space is provided the drive lanes will be too narrow and will not work.   Magnuson reviewed the various conditions that the plan commission have prepared in consideration of the conditional use permit; and if the auto dealership is not approved and the auto service center is approved, the conditions may not be implemented, such as the doors on the south side being closed until noon, no outside paging system, lights being 20 feet or less in height with a dimmer system, limit of 28 vehicles on display, no parking on the grass or street, 20 foot buffer on the south and the enclosed dumpster.  Magnuson expressed that this will be a beautiful facility and that this is a good project in a good community and proposed by good people.

 

Mailloux asked when the existing (former Perkins) building was built.  Darnold responded the plans for the development were approved by the Council in 1983, and the building was completed in 1984.  Darnold noted that the setback standards would have changed in 1993.

 

Gerald O’Flaherty noted that he was representing Hotels of Hudson and that he serves as the city attorney for the city of Onalaska which is a growing community, similar to the city of Hudson, with new construction being experienced.  O’Flaherty commented that the existing car dealership (Luther Chevrolet) was located in this neighborhood because the off-ramp of I-94 existed there.

 

O’Flaherty presented to the plan commission a petition opposing the proposed auto dealership signed by 14 persons representing nearby businesses / property owners, a letter from O’Flaherty commenting on non-compliance of the proposed auto dealership with

 

 

 

Page 3, Plan Commission

September 7, 2006

 

 

the local zoning regulations and a letter from a commercial lender expressing her opinion that the auto dealership would have a negative impact on the motel’s property value.  O’Flaherty further expressed that the auto dealership is not compatible with the existing neighborhood.

 

Gilbert stated the existing auto dealership was in place prior to the motel locating in the neighborhood.

 

O’Flaherty responded that the decision to locate near interstate Exit 2 was determined prior to Exit 2 being relocated, that a second dealership would be negative for the motel business and that a proposed 1 ¾ story building would block the view of the motel.

 

O’Flaherty noted that the project did not meet the parking requirements and that the extension of the building was not allowed because it was an extension of a non-conforming use.  Darnold commented that the building is non-conforming from a dimensional standard and it is not a non-conforming use.  O’Flaherty expressed concern that the building may be allowed to be extended at the present setback and that should not be permitted because the change of use from a restaurant to an auto dealership is a substantial change in use.  He noted that the Comfort Inn owners (Hotels of Hudson) requested that the city require the applicant to follow the requirements of the zoning code.

 

Koch noted that she is okay with the parking and building issue, but cannot support the project with non-compliance with the 25 foot green space requirement.

 

Bieraugel noted that he would be willing to support a motion to approve the conditional use permit for the auto dealership with the addition of the 25 foot green space along the Dominion Drive frontage.

 

Caruso expressed concern that the neighborhood continues to express concern about the project.

 

Gilbert asked if the applicants would consider modifying the plans to provide for the additional green space.  Andrews commented that the provision of the green space would be difficult to meet and that they are trying to do the best that they can, but that the plan commission has already placed several conditions on the project.  Routson noted that none of the existing dealerships conform with the standards for auto dealerships and that they have met with the neighborhood to discuss their concerns and amend plans to best address those concerns.

 

 

 

 

Page 4, Plan Commission

September 7, 2006                                                                              

 

 

Moved by Caruso, seconded by Gilbert to postpone consideration of the conditional use permit to provide an opportunity for the applicant to address the 25 foot green space provision.  Motion carried.

 

Certified survey map, one commercial lot and one outlot, south of Stageline Road and west of Center Drive – Ban Tara, LLC.  Darnold noted that lot 1 is proposed for the relocation of the Citizens State Bank facility and the proposed use for the outlot is undetermined at this time, but may be added to the lot to the south.  Pearson Drive will be extended easterly to Center Drive and will be a public street.  The driveway between lot 1 and outlot 1 will be a private driveway.  Darnold recommended approval of the certified survey map (CSM) with execution of the CSM upon execution of the development agreement.  Moved by Caruso, seconded by Mailloux to approve the certified survey map as proposed by Ban Tara, LLC for one commercial lot and one outlot and to recommend approval to the Common Council with the condition that the city shall not execute the CSM until the development agreement has been executed.  Motion carried.

 

Other business for discussion purposes or placement on future agendas.  Darnold noted that the next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, September 21st and a public hearing has been scheduled regarding the proposed 88 unit senior housing project in Red Cedar Canyon.  Yoerg asked if anyone has had an opportunity to visit the two senior housing projects in the Twin Cities that were mentioned by the developer (DMW Properties).  Breault and Darnold answered that they have not had an opportunity to visit the sites.

 

Moved by Yoerg, seconded by Caruso to adjourn.  Motion carried.  8:22 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Dennis D. Darnold, Secretary